Honestly I don’t understand how Unbroken is still even in the conversation for “Best Picture.” From the moment the trailer premiered it was obvious the movie was going to fall flat. The trailer conjured in my mind the feeling of the trailer for the 2008 disappointment Austrailia: big budget, big story, but poor execution (plus the entire plot was given away in the trailer, basically). Another sign for everyone should have been the fact that the Coens co-wrote the script but wouldn’t direct it. It wasn’t on my predictions even when it was the #1 predict for BP a few months ago, and I’m surprised it’s still on the Top 10.

Unbroken is likely not to get nominated. Yes it was lucky to get the nominations at the critics choice but I only see Unbroken getting the sound nominations and maybe cinematography. And if it gets in best picture I’m going to cry literally.

Because even though we all know (now) how Uneven the movie is, we also know the Academy eat up these big dramatic cheesy ass movies that celebrate American heroes that struggle a lot and go to hell (sometimes personified as an Asian man or group of men) and back but never lose their hope and grip. And word is The Academy members are loving it.

Look, I think we all know that the film’s chances in a lot of major categories are caput.

BUT, keep in mind, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close had a 46% on Rotten Tomatoes and 46 on Metacritic, and STILL got into the Top 9 because of its subject matter (not to mention the spell that Stephen Daldry is apparently able to cast on voters whenever he has a film out).

Unbroken is likely not getting into Director or Acting, and has a very possible chance of missing out on Screenplay, but the Academy members have been known to throw in the occasional nomination that contrasted with the critical community when it comes to the top prize, and this could be it. I’m not saying it’s a lock to get in, but the possibility remains there.

Plus, who knows? Maybe there will be some voters sympathetic to Jolie following the trashing that she got from Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal in the leaked Sony e-mails.

I’m currently (optimistically) predicting quite a few nominations still for Unbroken.

I still think it will get in for Picture and Screenplay. There is a longer shot at Miyavi getting in as Supporting Actor. Technical nominations should still be largely expected. The cinematography has been praised, and it could still get in for the sound categories, Coldplay may well sneak in to Song. Score isn’t wildly out of the question.

If voters truly LOVE it, then maybe even (only if they love it to the sun and back) Jack O’Connell may figure in – but that is among the longest of long shots.

Jolie has surrounded the film with pure talent. O’Connell – although a relevant newcomer, is a superb actor. The Coens/Deakins/Desplat are all incredible in their fields. And their names on the ballot could get the film nods.

I think “Unbroken” is squarely in the BP lineup, especially after its strong opening weekend box office showing. Not sure where the “fall” happened here in terms of its Oscar trajectory. The film as a whole is a bland and nuance-free hagiography, but that won’t stop its Academy reception. It’s already been mentioned how the Academy sometimes bucks critical consensus to go with their guts and vote with their heartstrings. I’m predicting this the same way that I predicted another Laura
Hillenbrand property, “Seabiscuit,” with mostly tech nominations and BP. This having the star power of Angelina Jolie behind the camera is also a plus in its favor. Miyavi making the supporting actor cut would be everything though. Robert Duvall doesn’t need to be rubberstamped for “The Judge” of all things.

I was sure that if this was critically acclaimed it would have taken the Best Picture race by storm. I even had it at #1 for a while. Then the critics weighed in, and I had to move it down… But not out. It can still get in. I’m planning to see it sometime next week, and can weigh in on whether it deserves it, but its chances aren’t as bad as they could be.

If Unbroken does get into Best Picture, people will definitely compare it to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, which is understandable. But something Extremely Loud had that Unbroken doesn’t is Stephen Daldry. Daldry clearly has a strong clique of supporters in the Academy who seem to put his films at the top of their list no matter what. It’s sort of like the might group of David O. Russell supporters. Angelina Jolie probably has a lot of friends in the Academy, but there is no evidence yet of there being a small group of voters who will automatically put her films (and all their attributes) as their #1. Plus, 2011 was a weak year for film. There was slim pickings for the Best Picture race. The BP race is much more crowded this year.

I’ve been struggling with what to write in response in this thread. I loved this movie and I have been thinking about why there is so much negativity about it. It’s compelling throughout, extremely well told, beautifully filmed, acted, edited, directed, and designed. If one of the major male directors (Spielberg, Fincher, Scorsese, Lee, P.T. Anderson, etc.) had directed the exact same movie in the exact same way the critics would love it. I still think this will get a Best Picture nomination, will win the Cinematography award (Roger Deakins camera work is phenomenal!), and get several other nominations (Production Design, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, perhaps Direction, Supporting Actor for Miyavi and Adapted Screenplay). One of the things that bothers me is this misunderstanding over the lead role: he’s meant to be a HERO, someone we root for and care about. Jack O’Connell gives an extraordinary performance; it’s a MOVIE STAR performance, like the ones George Clooney has given in films such as Michael Clayton, Up In The Air and The Descendants, or Harrison Ford in Witness and The Fugitive or Tom Cruise. He has the potential to become a big movie star AND he can really act, too!

My only minor quibble about Unbroken is that the actors don’t have the comportment of men in the 1940’s. Better hairstyles and work with the actors towards a 40’s feel in the way they walk and comport themselves would have improved an already excellent movie.

I hope anyone who hasn’t seen this movie yet will keep an open mind and decide for themselves what they think about this movie.

I’ve been struggling with what to write in response in this thread. I loved this movie and I have been thinking about why there is so much negativity about it. It’s compelling throughout, extremely well told, beautifully filmed, acted, edited, directed, and designed. If one of the major male directors (Spielberg, Fincher, Scorsese, Lee, P.T. Anderson, etc.) had directed the exact same movie in the exact same way the critics would love it. I still think this will get a Best Picture nomination, will win the Cinematography award (Roger Deakins camera work is phenomenal!), and get several other nominations (Production Design, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, perhaps Direction, Supporting Actor for Miyavi and Adapted Screenplay). One of the things that bothers me is this misunderstanding over the lead role: he’s meant to be a HERO, someone we root for and care about. Jack O’Connell gives an extraordinary performance; it’s a MOVIE STAR performance, like the ones George Clooney has given in films such as Michael Clayton, Up In The Air and The Descendants, or Harrison Ford in Witness and The Fugitive or Tom Cruise. He has the potential to become a big movie star AND he can really act, too!

My only minor quibble about Unbroken is that the actors don’t have the comportment of men in the 1940’s. Better hairstyles and work with the actors towards a 40’s feel in the way they walk and comport themselves would have improved an already excellent movie.

I hope anyone who hasn’t seen this movie yet will keep an open mind and decide for themselves what they think about this movie.

This is an A film and one of the best films of 2014.

“

I enjoyed reading your post. It doesnt sound as if I liked the film as much as you did, but I agree re the great Roger Deakins. Also, the score was pretty good during parts of the film.

I am not a big fan of the idea of film critics, although I am told (over and over) that they are “necessary”. Uh-huh. I’d rather ask my neighbours and friends….but I blame those who base their entire film watching as well as their reading (!) on where the fertilizer is being dispatched. Lol.

I’m glad I saw this despite my initial trepidations and I also think you’ve hit upon a very possible factor, which is, Angelina “directed” this.

I am not a big fan of the idea of film critics, although I am told (over and over) that they are “necessary”. Uh-huh. I’d rather ask my neighbours and friends….but I blame those who base their entire film watching as well as their reading (!) on where the fertilizer is being dispatched. Lol.

Why are critics of any art-form necessary? Because they have, or at least ought to have, the knowledge and experience to discuss art on a higher level than most people are capable of. I admit that I choose the films I see mostly based on reviews, but only because I don’t have the time/money to be able to see a wider range, including lesser-received works – I think it’s useful to watch mediocre/bad films to develop critical faculties. For me the problem is aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes which try to merge everything into a consensus, encouraging a superficial positive/negative divide and sweeping minority opinions under the rug. Is this relevant to your fertilzer comment? (very witty btw) I may be slightly over-reliant on reviews in my film-watching habits, but at least I simply read what people write instead of paying attention to the tomatometer/metascore.

If I’m honest, I usually find more insight in reviews/articles from top-quality publications than in conversations with my friends, with all due love and respect to them. And there’s no denying that without critics, so many more “smaller” indie films would not benefit from word-of-mouth and get the audiences they deserve (as if enough of them do already). I’m not for a minute suggesting you are like this, but I’m constantly amazed by how threatened some people are by critics. I’m talking about the types who prate on in comments sections about how critics are out of touch, that they “won’t admit they’re bored” by an avant-garde film, that they hate anything popular with audiences. The types who post death threats to a critic who dares to write a negative review for The Dark Knight Rises. Clearly they are insecure with their own opinions, or else other people’s wouldn’t pose such a threat to them.

there is no fall, this movie was never gonna be a big player (outside of maybe filler BP nom), if you saw Jolie’s first you would know that. I don’t know what got into some pundits predicting it for the win (!!), but I’m glad that’s over now.

Don’t get the passionate hate this film has
suddenly stirred.
Cheesy and uninspired in execution yes, but it is far from the worst film of
the year. I enjoyed it, and felt it was extremely heart-warming overall.
The hate sweeping internet blogs (and many critics) have the name Angelina
Jolie written all over it. Because I don’t
see how this film is as bad as people would like to make it out to be.

Unbroken won’t win Best Picture yes, that I will agree with.

But if we are going to talk about films
that have really FALLEN in terms of awards/box ofiice expectations, we might as well add a few beloved ones on here that probably deserve their own little thread as well (Big Eyes, Interstellar etc).Because Unbroken (against the odds) is a big
box office hit, with a passionate following, and it is garnering awards/nominations along the way.

I hope it gets the nomination forBest Picture (along with a few others). And I am sure it will.

Because at the end of the day, it is not
only the films critics hail as “masterpieces”
that are worthy .

Critics have had their say. The Academy
voters will now vote for their favourites.